Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition Blu Ray

[handsomedevil]

I'll probably buy it. I have the old, regular-release DVD in case I get the urge for the director's original, grainy version...

 

[DouglasMcc]

Douglas, I think you are missing everyones point. People are complaining that the movie no longer represents the original filmakers intent from an image perspective. Sure there was some cleaning and restoration to be done to clean up some of the unintentional noise of the transfer, but many are saying that this is DNR'd to the point of being ridiculous. I, for one will judge after I watch it for myself. The original Blu transfer didnt bother me at all, because I understand that this is a 20+ year old movie, and there is only so much that can be done with it. Therefore I will be buying this mainly for the extra stuff not included on the original blu release.

Edit: well said Estel

No Furious, I get your point. And, I respect it. I think I took most offense to so many people who are bashing the transfer either A.) from a few screen captures online (which don't represent what the image looks like in motion) or B.) because they are against DNR in all it's forms. If you haven't watched the new Blu-Ray, then state that, because you're not expression an opinion, you expressing your prediction. If anyone here can say, "I have watched the original Blu-Ray and also have viewed the new transfer (on similar HDTVs) and I prefer the V1 version," I accept and respect that. I may not agree, but it's your opinion and it's no more valid than mine or anyone elses. But, to bash the Hunter edition without even seeing it ... I don't respect that at all.

 

[Biojex]

The way I see it is, The new blu-ray has that initial "ooooo Shiny" aspect to it. It brings out beautiful colors and does actually show some nice details giving Predator an almost "new" feel to it (I've watched it twice now with and without commentary). However I will always prefer the original graininess (is that a word?), It's just my preference and I like that I have a choice when I come back later on. I can decide what I want to see.



Sidenote: I wish they would do a theater run of Predator like they did with Alien.

 

[thenammagazine]

Personally, I'm not a film snob and will enjoy a great BR movie with a ____ load of extras at a $15 price. It's no longer fun to enjoy movies if you're gonna stand one eighth of an inch from the screen with your magnifying glass going, "OH! RIGHT THERE! THEY ____ED IT UP! OOOOOOOOOH! YOU CAN'T SEE HIS BLACKHEADS ANYMORE!!! I'M SOOOOOO IRKED!!!! OOOOOOOOOH!!!!!" Personally, I'd rather sit on the couch with my daughter and a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the ____ing thing. But that's just me.

I'm happily married with 2 kids GFYS.

People adopt?

 

[SOLIDSNAKE]

got mine. It looks so awsome.
a bit better then the first Predator BR.

 

[furystorm]

Sidenote: I wish they would do a theater run of Predator like they did with Alien.

Had to interject here and say, yes, absolutely. And not only Predator, but so many more films. Like right now for instance, I would love to see Jaws in a theater. I never did, and would like to have the opportunity to now. Same with Alien, my favorite film of all time. I was given the opportunity and took it with the 25th anniversary. Same with Blade Runner, and wow, what an experience. I didn't think it was coming to Vegas, so I drove down to L.A. for the day to see it, and was not disappointed in the least.

More great films need this kind of rerelease.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Regarding the DNR-debate, there seem to be two camps.

1. Those who prefer their films clean, thus filtered and preferably without grain.

2. Those who are not bothered by grain, as to them it is it an inherent part of the way a film was shot - and therefore should not be altered.

I will say that I am fully biased and a full-fledged supporter of camp no.2. However, I will not ridicule those who, by whatever reasoning, prefer option 1.

What does anger me, however, are the often ignorant/arrogant remarks made by those how support the use of DNR.

If you prefer the use of DNR, great, I won't tell you that you are wrong in your opinion.
It is however preposterous to to claim that DNR'ed films are sharper, more detailed and closer to the intention of a director than a product closer to the original (untouched) film-negative. Grain, in film, is what creates the images you see, it is a fundamental photochemical reaction. Removing/reducing grain will always, and let me stress always, no matter how minor it may be, reduce detail in a print.

As the absolute Mount Everest of ridicule - I recently read someone's comment on this board, stating that directors don't want grain, and if they had a choice, they would prefer their films without it. As someone how works in the film industry, let me make it clear that both directors and cinematographers, for many decades and in present time, take great care in choosing the appropriate filmstock that matches their vision of the film. This actively includes graininess and colour reproduction - Janusz Kaminski being one of the best examples.

From time to time directors and cinematographers revisit the look of their films (eg for a blu-ray release), and I don't have any fundamental problems with this - as long as the original version is still available. To me, once an artwork has been sent in to the world, released from its creators creative claws, the particular original version must be respected and preserved to remain in its original form - not to mention be available in that form to the public. I'm sure many of you feel the same way about Uncle George's changes to the Star Wars OT.
Other notable examples are William Friedkin's rigorous changes made for the French Connection blu-ray, and Vittorio Storaros (cinematographer) unwillingness to release his films in their original aspect ratio on home video, in order to promote his own commercial 'vision' (The Last Emperor or Apocalypse Now).

In short, I'm just trying to say that I think it's absolutely fine if you prefer DNR applied to your films, just don't act like it's a objectively proven improvement or an intended result of the way a film was shot - unless clearly stated otherwise.

As for this new release of Predator (which I have been able to review), I have been lucky enough to have seen a 35mm print of Predator on two occasions, and neither time did it look anything like the mess that Fox has put out with this release. The original blu-ray has its share of problems with compression, but is much closer in look to the way Predator was originally shot. Many parts of Predator were cropped during production, and if I'm not mistaken even the aspect-ratio was changed. Graininess and occasional softness are inherent to this film. As far as my knowledge stretches, nor John McTiernan, nor his cinematographer were involved in bringing this new release to 'life'. Fox has merely responded to many of the complaints about graininess in the original release, and gone completely overboard.

I can only conclude that if you truly respect Predator as a film, you will go for the original release.

Thanks for saving me the time of typing something like this.

 

[thenammagazine]

Had to interject here and say, yes, absolutely. And not only Predator, but so many more films. Like right now for instance, I would love to see Jaws in a theater. I never did, and would like to have the opportunity to now. Same with Alien, my favorite film of all time. I was given the opportunity and took it with the 25th anniversary. Same with Blade Runner, and wow, what an experience. I didn't think it was coming to Vegas, so I drove down to L.A. for the day to see it, and was not disappointed in the least.

More great films need this kind of rerelease.

Start bugging the smaller art theatres in your area that have cinemaclubs. The one near us has midnight showings of lots of the older, classic films (Raiders, Army of Darkness, Enter the Dragon, Vertigo, etc.) that for one reason or another, you didn't catch in the theatres or want to see again.

 

[Estel]

Personally, I'm not a film snob and will enjoy a great BR movie with a ____ load of extras at a $15 price. It's no longer fun to enjoy movies if you're gonna stand one eighth of an inch from the screen with your magnifying glass going, "OH! RIGHT THERE! THEY ____ED IT UP! OOOOOOOOOH! YOU CAN'T SEE HIS BLACKHEADS ANYMORE!!! I'M SOOOOOO IRKED!!!! OOOOOOOOOH!!!!!" Personally, I'd rather sit on the couch with my daughter and a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the ____ing thing. But that's just me.

But this has no relation to a problematic blu-ray release.

I can ____ing enjoy Predator on VHS, but that doesn't stop me from wanting the best possible video and audio quality on Blu-ray.

 

[thenammagazine]

But this has no relation to a problematic blu-ray release.

I can ____ing enjoy Predator on VHS, but that doesn't stop me from wanting the best possible video and audio quality on Blu-ray.

It's not a "problematic Blu-Ray release." The disc works fine and comes with everything listed on the case. So you're wrong. You're talking about a company's choice of utilizing DNR. That doesn't mean the BluRay itself is problematic. It's not. And looking at that, I'm not going to over-analyze the smoothing of film grains on a $15 BR. If it was $59+ and an Ultimate Uber Platinum Diamond Special Director's Cut UNCUT edition, then it might be a bit more justified. But for $15, I'm just gonna buy the damn thing and enjoy it for what it is.

 

[Estel]

It's not a "problematic Blu-Ray release." The disc works fine and comes with everything listed on the case. So you're wrong. You're talking about a company's choice of utilizing DNR. That doesn't mean the BluRay itself is problematic. It's not. And looking at that, I'm not going to over-analyze the smoothing of film grains on a $15 BR. If it was $59+ and an Ultimate Uber Platinum Diamond Special Director's Cut UNCUT edition, then it might be a bit more justified. But for $15, I'm just gonna buy the damn thing and enjoy it for what it is.

Well, clearly I'm wrong so there's no point in arguing.

Enjoy your blu-ray, and I hope you will find it to be $15 well-spent.

 

[kl241]

Well, clearly I'm wrong so there's no point in arguing.

Enjoy your blu-ray, and I hope you will find it to be $15 well-spent.

Bill Hunt just posted a scathing rant about DNR on this bluray over at The Digital Bits. I'd suggest Douglas et al have a look.

 

[CelticPredator]

Must...............

 

[CelticPredator]

Skip...................

 

[CelticPredator]

This.................

 

[CelticPredator]

Page..........

 

[CelticPredator]

With.....................

 

[CelticPredator]

The...............

 

[CelticPredator]

HUGE ASS PICTURE!!!!!11 pppspps.s..

 

[DouglasMcc]

Bill Hunt just posted a scathing rant about DNR on this bluray over at The Digital Bits. I'd suggest Douglas et al have a look.

Why should I look at another rant? I did read it since you called me out by name, but it doesn't change anything. I expressed my opinion, another rant that sounded just like the previous one isn't going to change the way I feel. I am beginning to wonder why it is so important to you to change my opinion. Is it really so bad that someone else in this world has a thought/opinion in their head that is different from yours? Truthfully, the whole point is moot here - FOX has given you an opportunity to watch the film either way - V1 or V2. You chose V1, I chose V2. And that's the way free choice is suppose to work. But, until you actually watch the Blu-Ray in question, I am done debating the issue with you. Have a wonderful evening and thanks for all you do.

P.S. This is the part from the above link that irks me the most: "Guys, you are actively undermining EVERYTHING that a lot of good film preservation people in this industry have worked so hard for over so many years. You are doing yourselves, the film, the legacy of classic, pre-digital cinema, your fellow movie fans, and the Blu-ray format as a whole a terrible, TERRIBLE disservice."

Wow ... just wow. Our opinions differ ... I can accept that. Hell, I will go so far as to agree this man knows more about film than I will ever know. But, guess what. I know something that he doesn't - I know what I like. So, since our opinions differ, do we accept that and move on? No, Bill tries to guilt trip us ... that whole article reads like a 20 minute phone conversation with my mom:

"Well, if you don't want to watch the movie the way I like it .... I guess that's okay ..... as long as you are happy dear ...."

I hate being talked down to, I hate being told what I should know and feel, and I especially hate someone trying to guilt me into changing my opinion. I disagree with him, and I am not going to change my opinion no matter how much of an imaginary "disservice" I am doing Bill and friends. And, just remember kids, if you don't agree with someone, "make some noise. Do it politely, but do it loudly and don't stop until" they fall into line with what you believe ... ah, the American Way ... insert sarcasm.